logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.01.10 2016나37714
토지인도등
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall provide the plaintiffs with an indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 of the attached appraisal sheet.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the reasoning of the court of first instance is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. The lower part of the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance, which was used or added, to the lower part at the bottom of the fourth part (hereinafter “the lower part”) is as follows.

“A building” in the fourth section of the first instance judgment (hereinafter referred to as “the instant fixtures”) is raised as “a settlement object” in the fourth section of the first instance judgment.

Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, from 3 to 14, shall be reversed as follows.

A. The plaintiffs asserted 1) around July 2004, the plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement on the land of this case with the defendant, and the defendant did not have paid only once, the contract was terminated through certification of the contents of this case, and the contract was terminated at latest through a copy of the complaint of this case. Meanwhile, although the name of the business operator of the gas station of this case is the defendant J, the person who actually operates the gas station of this case is the defendant, and the defendant shall remove or collect the fixtures of this case, deliver the land of this case, return the land of this case to the borrower, and return the land of this case to the borrower as unjust enrichment by the time of delivery of the land of this case. (2) Even if the lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant is not a lease agreement, it can be terminated at any time since it was not a loan agreement, and since the plaintiffs terminated the lease agreement of this case through certification of the contents of this case.

arrow